In any society of people, the governance is placed in the few to govern the rest supposedly to their collective benefit. However self interest will soon see the few with power aggrandise themselves with privileges and riches. It is made easier by the veil of ignorance amongst the masses kept in place by propaganda of those in power. However the many too have common interest of checking the few in power from abusing the exercise of it. This is first principle of politics. This regulation of self interest against common interest is sought to be achieved by constitution and law and institution of judiciary, supposedly independent, to uphold their interpretation. Hence rules and laws (civil or criminal) are made to balance both individual and collective/societal rights and obligations; rules and laws (administrative, company rules) are made both to facilitate decision making by bureaucracy, whether in public or private sector, and to prevent arbitrary decision making in violation of the balance between private and public rights/obligations. Rules and laws (Constitution) are made to regulate what the few could do and how the the collective rest could check and replace them and participate in political decision making via the ballot box.

Rules and laws are therefore of paramount importance in organisation and evolution of a civilised society. (A nation of laws like the USA has proportionately more lawyers han others and is practically run by them). So how could their practitioners (lawyers) or arbiters (judges) be “wasters of oxygen”?

Those who say this in frustration are actually not denigrating the importance of rules and law in politics or society or even the important roles of lawyers and judges in this respect in the abstract except that the many specific lawyers and judges have – in carrying out their functions, whether on the benches in the case of judges or in private practice or the Legal/Judicial Service/AG Chambers – abysmally fail to uphold the Rule of Law and Constitution. It is not that they could not divine the purpose/spirit and letter of the rules and laws – though some incompetent in their field would be guilty of it – instead, having divined and grasped the meaning behind the rule and the law, they still seek to thwart and frustrate their intent and effect in service and collaboration with the corrupt and wealthy few in power, hoping to partake in their exclusive privileges. Only in this sense, these lawyers and judges are wasters of oxygen.

However the same cannot be ascribed to those who keep to the spirit, intent and integrity of the rules law and constitution – like Karpal Singh, Param Cumaraswamy, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Zaid Ibrahim (of late) Edmund Bon (Bar Council). Sankara Nair (Bar Council), PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah, ex judges like Syed Ahmad Idid, ex judges like NH Chan KC Vohrah or Shaikh Daud Ismail, and those amongst them who were sacked during TDM’s time for their independence like Tun Salleh Abbas, Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoolcader, Azmi Kamaruddin, Wan Hamzah and Wan Suleiman Pawanteh, George Edward Seah. Are they all “wasters of oxygen” too just because they could not pressure the powers-that-be to return to the Rule of Law thus far?

To mention “political problems require political solutions, not your stupid courts and laws” is perilously close to the call by revolutaries. Not all revolutionaries such as Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther. Some are Che Guevara, Osama and in local context Chin Peng.

I for one am not smart enough to know what I meant by political solutions.

However, if you are gifted beyond ordinary with excess of smartness to know the political solutions, which I am sure even YB LKS is looking for, I am sure the rest of us will be enlightened and indebted to hear what these viable political solutions are here.

‘…Fix the political system first, the courts and laws will take care of themselves…’ – LimKamPut

Firstly I assume that “fix the political system” means changing government via ballot box. We all know that though we wonder whether you have faster and more expedient, and more importantly, viable means till then. If so we would like to hear.

Even so as Undergrad2 has pointed out until such time political system first fixed when “courts and laws will then take care of themselves” does that mean that people like Karpal Singh or (say) Mohd Nizar should not – meanwhile – seek redress via lawyers and legal means from the “stupid courts and laws”?

Are all government lawyers in courts that bereft of hope that they could decide by the law?

One recall at least 3 instances where resorting to stupid courts and law is of some utility:

· Sessions Court judge S.M.Komathy Suppiah gave unexpectedly Anwar bail;

· On 7th Nov 2008 Shah Alam Court acquitted RPK in respect to his Habeas Corpus against ISA detention, a decision appealed against by the govt;

· In an appeal by Perak Speaker Sivakumar against Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim’s decision that he must use Perak legal state counsel, the Court of Appeal sometime early this month ruled in favour of Sivakumar – that he could engage private lawyers to represent him in two civil suits brought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and six state executive councillors and three independent assemblymen.

What would the position of Anwar, RPK or Sivakumar be in the meantime if they forget about the courts and wait for fixing of the political system (when those who are smart enough to know how to fix it are not sharing it)?

In furtherance of what swee_ann_tweety posted at 16: 12.51 above, I agree that a breach of party ethics and discipline is not necessarily criminal in nature.

For example Datuk Sharir Abdul Samad supported the opposition motion to refer Jasin MP to Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee. It was a breach of party ethics – Shahrir was punished by having to quit as chairman of the Backbenchers Club Chairman –but it has to be differentiated that what Shahrir did was not criminal. There is then a case for differentiation between the two!

Money politics however comes under the definition of corruption under MACC Act. Even the MACC Commissioner was reportedly quoted as having opined so.

The fact that money politics is also an infringement party ethics and discipline does not by itself divest it off its criminal nature.

Therefore the fact that money politics comes under purview of party ethics and discipline does not – by whatever the outcome of internal party disciplinary hearings – exempt it from purview and investigations under MACC.

There is no justification here for differentiating a breach of party ethics and discipline from that (money politics) which is also criminal in nature.

Law is but a neutral instrument which is often used by the guilty and the corrupt as well as the innocent and clean for their respective if conflicting purposes.

Indeed this underscores the importance that the latter category of people just cannot afford not to be equipped by a working knowledge of the law to combat twisting, falsehood and misrepresentation.

It is so easily twisted by the other side to serve less meritorious, and often self interested or corrupt purposes.